To whom it may concern:

Now you have two (that’s two out of two) Senators who apparently get out of bed every morning and make a conscious decision that above all else they will be “Moderate” first, Republican second, and Conservative–dead last.

We’ve known this about Senator Snowe for quite a while, but maybe Senator Collins is a new convert to the “don’t think, just be moderate” wing of the Republican Party.

Please ask your Senators to clearly lay out either a) what they were offered by Senator Reid that was so tempting as to “reach across the aisle” and pass YET ANOTHER crap sandwich “stimulus” bill, or b) where is the gaping hole in their lives that has to be filled by abandoning reason in order to appear…”bi-partisan.”

Sincerely,

LogiPundit

Just so everyone knows the score.  Our Virginia delegation voted against the bailout plan 6 to 5:

Virginia’s congressional delegation was sharply divided, with six voting against the package and five in favor. Bobby Scott was the only Virginia Democrat voting against the bill. He joined Republicans Robert Wittman, Thelma Drake, Randy Forbes, Virginia Goode and Robert Goodlatte.

Voting for the legislation were Republicans Eric Cantor, Frank Wolf and Tom Davis, and Democrats Jim Moran and Rick Boucher.

If I recall correctly, Eric Cantor was one of the Republicans front and center really pushing this thing.

But since my Representative is Frank Wolf, that’s who has some explaining to do to me (OK, not me in particular, but his constituents in general).  And check THIS out.  His former primary opponent, Vern McKinley (whom Mr. Wolf trounced 9 to 1), reportedly warned about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae more than 10 years ago:

“Although Freddie and Fannie are privately owned, they are what is known as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). GSEs don’t have to follow all the rules that true privately owned companies do: they don’t have to register their securities with the government, their securities receive special treatment for investment purposes, they don’t have to pay state and local income taxes and–most important–their government sponsorship gives them the aura of a fully guaranteed government entity. That final benefit means they save billions in borrowing costs, just as lenders are willing to offer low-interest student loans that are guaranteed by the government. That savings alone allows the GSEs to pocket about $2 billion per year, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Treasury Department.”

“Allowing Congress to grant such special privileges is a bad idea. Those privileges, which are granted solely to Freddie and Fannie, crowd out other potential competitors in their market. Privately owned companies should not receive such preferred borrowing status, because it redirects investor funds into the middle- and upper-income housing market at the expense of other potential investments. Finally, the failure of either Freddie or Fannie could saddle taxpayers with a huge liability.”

“Congress should immediately revoke all the benefits of government sponsorship: clearly, Freddie and Fannie can be profitable without them. Eliminating special privileges will force mortgage markets to be truly competitive and will eliminate the possibility that the current system of government sponsorship will someday lead to yet another taxpayer-funded bailout.”

Just think what difference it would make if we had a few more Republicans in the House (and Senate) actually acting like Republicans.  Well I’ll say one thing, there were many today who did, and I thank God for them.

To save Johnny the trouble of navigating the perilous waters (no pun intended) of embedding a YouTube Video.

This is very disturbing, but illustrates volumes. Watch it to the very end and see President Clinton admit the obvious:

Hopefully, as Johnny put it, this will mean the beginning of the end of Barack Obama, given that Frank Raines is one of his top financial advisors.

These are a couple of excellent articles (here and here, registration required and recommended) from Clive Crook at the Financial Times.  He points out how obviously the Liberal Elite and the Democratic party hold in low regard the very people they purportedly are so ardently representing.  A couple of excerpts:

Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.

Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.

And…

Efforts to smear the governor proceed at a frantic pace. My guess would be that there are now more journalists on assignment in Alaska than bothered to turn up for the Republican convention in St Paul, sifting through dustbins, interrogating Palin family acquaintances (extra credit for those with a grievance) and subjecting Ms Palin’s expenses claims to a fanatical scrutiny which I dare say their own record-keeping, or that of most senators, might not withstand.

Of course, they will find things. They may even find something important. But the sheer swarming zeal for trivial malfeasance and family embarrassments is rapidly raising the bar for impropriety. I think that many voters – and not just committed Republicans – find this whole spectacle disgusting, so on top of everything else Ms Palin is now getting a sympathy vote.

I, like the author, can’t help but laugh at the trap that the Democrats have walked into here.  It’s very simply a microcosm and expose on their attitudes in general.  It’s particularly amazing to me when I have conversations with supporters of Obama (you know who you are) who accuse McCain and Palin (and all their EVIL minions) of deliberately and consistently manipulating and fooling the American people into following them.  As if their beliefs have absolutely no value in and of themselves, it’s simply the Republican machine grabbing power.  You can’t simply disagree with the Liberal viewpoint, you simply must be too dense and stupid to grasp it.  There’s an astounding sense of intellectual snobbery matched by a decided lack of intellectual depth that continually boggles the mind.

The further irony (as Mr. Crook adeptly points out) is that Obama himself would never abide by this nonsense.  If his latest book is any indication, he seeths at the concept of insulting an entire group of people based on their beliefs.  And even though his campaign has eventually made its way into a predictable and depressing class warfare stump speech, I believe as the author does that his initial reaction to Palin was the right one, and it was a sincere one.  Unfortunately, the undeniable support he receives from the media is not matched by a solid control of it, and he couldn’t stop them from descending on Wasila like a pack of wild Banshees trying to find crazy preachers and 2nd grade classmates of Palin who would talk bad about her.

Got this in my email inbox today from none other than Richard Viguerie:

To this day I’m proud of my association with Ron Paul.

 

I’m equally proud of my association with Woody Jenkins, who is running for Congress in a special election just three weeks away.

 

I hope you’ll join me in supporting Woody Jenkins:

 

https://www.digitaldonation.com/donate.aspx?campid=1277

 

I’ve known Woody Jenkins for about as long as I’ve known Dr. Paul – roughly 35 years.

 

Woody is widely considered one of the brightest, most articulate conservative leaders in the country.

 

And when I learned he was running for Congress I thought it was too good to be true.

 

Woody earned a national reputation while serving for 28 years in the Louisiana statehouse.

 

He ran for the U.S. Senate in 1996 against Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu. The razor-thin election – marred by massive New Orleans vote fraud – is considered by many to have been stolen.

Does anyone remember that fiasco with the recount. I was in my (first) senior year at LSU when this happened. I remember Woody was lambasted and ridiculed DAILY as a pitiful whiner. I didn’t have a really informed opinion at the time other than I wanted him to have won. I never really trusted the vote from New Orleans, for a plethora of reasons, but does anyone have any info on how credible Viguerie’s “considered by many” is?

I really wanted this guy to run for President.  I was shocked and appalled at the way he was treated by the FEC ala McCain/Feingold, and will always wonder what could have been.  At the CPAC last week Newt had clear and concise ideas for the Conservative Government.

It is probably one of the most instructive speeches outlining truly logical Conservatism I’ve heard in quite a while.  Three very interesting things struck me as inevitable for the survival of the Conservative movement:

1) Declaration of Independence from the Republican Party.
2) A halt with the obsession of the Oval Office and all that Washington for our leadership.
3) A renewed focus on Conservative GOVERNMENT instead of packaged consultant-driven campaigns.

So in other words:

1) A movement of ideas and not personalities.
2) Bottom-up politics instead of top-down–starting with Boards of Supervisors, etc.
3) Keeping our promises and earning the America’s trust.

Anyway, you gotta see the whole thing…

Someone explain to me why the Republican party of all party has a front loaded primary where delegate-heavy New York and New Jersey is winner take all…virtually guaranteeing that a Southern Conservative can’t possibly win them, and Louisiana is virtually a “winner-take-none” State…Virginia with 40% of its voting population in the DC suburbs…winner-take-all state.

Now I’m not fussin’, but just curious.  It seems odd to me that an obviously contentious election from the beginning would have four or five states engineered early on to eliminate a “Non-establishment” candidate.

I’m not a Republican, so I need this explained to me.

I know everyone is tired of hearing me talk about Huckabee…but this is a must watch. Name me one Presdidential Candidate who is taken the time to talk about these things. This guy is not just some preacher from Hope who wants to be a “Christian Leader.” He is someone who not only understands Federalism, but can explain it and embodies it. There’s two parts to this video, the second part starting at 4:00, is about Katrina and Governor Huckabee connects the failures of the Katrina tragedy with the current administration’s Hamiltonianism:

This guy just gets it…pure and simple…he’s wrong about a few things, but not on this one.

An interesting article by Mark Davis which ties the “Free Market” concept with the current GOP primary situation.  An article which curiously fails to mention even the NAME of either of the other candidates still in the race, and tells us to “Calm down” and “Relax” and “Take a deep breath”…sound familiar?

If Mark Davis were to follow his market analogy, then he would agree that competition breeds quality improvement.

There is a plethora of evidence that:

a) McCain indeed could conceivably go into the convention without 1191 delegates.
b) The other candidates (all that currently have delegates–Huckabee, Romney, and Paul) will as a result have influence at that convention.
c) All four of these Republicans add to the discourse, and as a result improve the party and hold it to its principles of National Security, Free-markets, and Traditionalism.
d) Governor Huckabee and Congressman Paul will have a debate with John McCain at least once before the very important March 4th Primaries. This helps the Republican party in a plethora of very obvious ways.

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate with a perfect history. Reagan wasn’t perfect either, but he communicated the Conservative vision extremely well. Huckabee does that better than McCain and that’s why he is doing so well in “Middle America.” That doesn’t make him perfect, and it doesn’t make him Ronald Reagan, but why is a candidate having MORE success in core Republican States make him LESS of a player than someone having LESS success there (like Romney).

If we are concerned about the future of the party (or more  importantly the Conservative Movement), you need to look no further than the Youth Vote on the Republican side. In competitive Primary states (Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia) Republican voters between 18-29 vote pretty largely in favor of Huckabee…there’s a reason for that, and it’s mainly because the guy makes sense, he doesn’t “golly” too much and he doesn’t speak down to people, he relates and he connects.

Another odd thing about the “Middle America” voter:  the “three legs of the Conservative stool” are not represented so clear cut by the candidates’ supporters.  For instance, Mitt Romney supporters are more confident of his foreign policy abilities than they are his economic abilities, and McCain supporters are more confident in his economic abilities than in his foreign policy abilities.  Seems odd doesn’t it?  It’s not odd; it means that most people don’t vote like mindless drones based on ONE issue.  If they’re voting for some guy, they either a) like him because they like him, or b) believe he is the right man for the job…period.

The reason why a John McCain fan feels John McCain can handle the economy better is because they trust him…they respect his military leadership experience to the point where they think he would MAKES BETTER DECISIONS about the economy.  An avid Romney fan trusts Romney to run our Military the same way he run his businesses: efficiently, intelligently, calling on other experts for advise, and MAKING GOOD DECISIONS.

And a Huckabee fan trusts Huckabee with Foreign Policy AND the Economy, not because they hope he’ll sweep into the White House, change all our textbooks to teach only Creationism, hang all the gay people and hand out guns to first graders.  They trust him because they trust his ability to MAKE DECISIONS based on his Faith, his Principles, and his Values, and like the idea of his getting on his knees every once in a while and asking the Good Lord for guidance.  Thus the often maligned and often denigrated “Evangelical Right” wants a leader that makes major decisions much like they do.  (And by the way, did anyone notice that the more educated voters in these States tend to vote for Huckabee…hmm.)

All that to say that “the third leg of the stool” is the one that is missing from the Conservative conversation…and Huckabee embodies that even more than the current President does, because he talks about ECONOMIC and NATIONAL SECURITY issues from the SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE point of view.  Reagan did it…A LOT!…just listen to his speeches.  It’s perfectly reasonable (even recommended) for someone’s foreign policy and economic ideals to be firmly rooted in their “SOCIAL” principles.

Liberals do it easily.  Every argument they make stems from a social core:  Respect for human dignity, the plight of the poor, equality, “universal health care”, privacy…

Name an argument–foreign policy, economics, or social–from the left’s point of view that doesn’t stem from this core.  It’s impossible to think of one.  Simple economics, historical truths, science…all can be ignored at the drop of the hat because of what they feel is the “Right” thing to do.  And their logic still comes out looking consistent and sound.

The Conservative view has the ability to do the same thing, but it gets lost in semantics:  “I’m a FISCAL conservative so I think those dumb redneck christians should just shut up about their stupid “social” issues. ”  or “That Romney guy is a good business person, but I just don’t think he has what it takes to fight the ‘War on Terror’” or “That McCain guy thought stemcell research was a good idea so he should definitely ROT IN HELL.”

I’ve often said that the thinking Conservative view is harder to sell because it requires logic to defend it, whereas the Liberal point of view doesn’t require it at all.  The problem with that is, obviously, thinking Liberals feel the same way about the Conservative view.  Thus logical conversations are often impossible between even the most intelligent political thinkers.

Maybe the problem is that the Conservative three-legged stool is not really Free Markets, Christian Fundamentalism, and Peace through Strength.  Instead, maybe it’s:  Limited and enumerated Government, Community and Family Values, and National Sovereignty.   Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee represent those ideas better than ANYONE in the race and thus need to continue to be heard.  Without this perspective Conservatives  look like either: 1) warmongers, 2) greedy money-grubbers, or 3) fanatic proselytes.  (As opposed to Environmentalist Wackos, Feminazis, and Peaceniks).  None of these images were attractive to “Reagan Democrats.”

I believe my point is, if we can’t have a reasonable, logical, and productive conversation with each other through the Republican primaries–regardless of the damn delegate count, how in the hell are we supposed to change the hearts and minds of Liberals and “Moderates?” 

Here’s an article about the Ron Paul phenomenon. As expected, there’s a little too much emphasis on the “liberal” part of modern “libertarianism” (the war on drugs is mentioned more than once), and of course the war on Iraq is cited as a cornerstone of flawed interventionism. Here, however, is the part that describes most accurately the “libertarian” tendencies of some within the Republican party.

…In the 1990s, conservative Republicans rose to power by relentlessly attacking Big Government. Yet the minute they took control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, they kicked out the jams on even a semblance of fiscal responsibility, signing off on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and building literal and figurative bridges to nowhere. From 2001 to 2008, federal outlays will have grown by an estimated 29 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

And I almost took issue with this part:

Now with about 5 percent (and climbing) support in polls of likely Republican voters…

Until I looked at the numbers. It seems he’s gotten a little boost just within the last couple of months. I sincerely think he should hang in there and nip at the big money in the race (although according to this article he IS the big money lately). Hopefully, maybe, possibly, we’ll have an actual discussion about real issues at one of these debates